INTERNET AND E-COMMERCE PATENTS. Bradley C. Wright

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INTERNET AND E-COMMERCE PATENTS. Bradley C. Wright"

Transcription

1 INTERNET AND E-COMMERCE PATENTS Bradley C. Wright The digital world is getting crowded. The number of Web sites has skyrocketed into the millions as companies supplement their traditional merchandising avenues with electronic commerce. Consumers spent $7 billion shopping online during the two months of November and December 1999, according to research by Jupiter Communications, Inc. As this new medium has become pervasive, companies with an Internet presence have labored to distinguish their Web sites and marketing techniques from the offerings of others. Consumers who purchase goods and services over the Internet want things faster, cheaper, and better. Waiting for a slow Web site to download overly complicated graphics or navigating through clunky computer screens have prompted Internet consumers to switch to user-friendly Web sites. Unlike shoppers in a grocery store or a shopping mall, shoppers on the Internet can dump vendors at the click of a mouse. Patents have proven to be an effective tool for setting up fences in cyberspace, permitting companies to exclude others from unique techniques of advertising and selling products. As the examples discussed below illustrate, a patent can be the single most important asset to a company doing business on the Internet. Nevertheless, certain pitfalls await the unwary. WHAT IS AN E-COMMERCE OR INTERNET PATENT? What exactly is an E-commerce patent? Generally speaking, it is a patent that protects a method of buying or selling something (including goods and services) over the Internet. Examples include so-called electronic shopping carts; Web sites that employ auction-like techniques to sell goods; and computer screen designs that make it easier to transact business on the Internet. The term Internet patent is sometimes used to refer more generally to patents that involve anything on the Internet, and can cover methods of transmitting information over the Internet; data compression techniques; and encryption methods. Although the number of software patents has skyrocketed in recent years, patents covering so-called methods of doing business have emerged as a special breed, and have gained new momentum as a result of recent court cases. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all appeals in patent infringement lawsuits, recently ruled that a business method can be patented if it produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The same court held that a method need not involve any physical transformation in order to be patentable. AT&T v. Excel Communications Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The AT&T case involved a method of inserting a special code into a telephone call to indicate the telephone customer s calling plan. In light of

2 these cases, it is fair to say that if a business-related invention is new and not obvious, it can be patented. E-commerce and Internet patents can be used to protect various types of business practices on the Internet. Numerous patents have issued in this area. Several examples are provided below, arranged by category of coverage. A. Sales & Purchasing Techniques Some patents cover specific techniques for purchasing goods or services over the Internet. These inventions make it faster, easier, and more enjoyable for consumers to make electronic purchases. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has created a special category in its patent indexing system (class 705, subclass 26) for patents of this type. One patent that has created a recent stir is owned by on-line bookseller Amazon.com. U.S. patent number 5,960,411, which issued in September 1999, protects Amazon s one-click technology. In contrast to Web sites that require that consumers enter payment and shipping information and to click various buttons to place an order, Amazon s one-click technology allows a consumer to immediately order a book by clicking a single button. The patent specifically notes that the patented method is performed without using a shopping cart ordering model. Some in the Internet community have complained that this patent is an obvious variation over previously available technology. As discussed in more detail below, however, a federal judge has upheld the validity of this patent on a preliminary injunction ruling against Amazon s chief rival, Barnesandnoble.com. A company called Open Market has patented a technique for using an electronic shopping cart to purchase goods on the Internet (patent number 5,715,314, entitled Network Sales System ). On-line merchants provide these shopping carts to permit customers to accumulate purchases and to see their accumulated totals before checking out to complete the purchase transaction. Another example of such a patent is U.S. patent number 5,745,681, entitled Stateless Shopping Cart for the Web. The patent, which is owned by Sun Microsystems, relates to a shopping cart that is managed by a Web browser running on the consumer s computer. A New Zealand woman obtained a U.S. patent on a method of purchasing goods across different Web sites using a single shopping cart. The patented method in U.S. patent number 5,895,454, entitled Integrated Interface for Vendor/Product Oriented Internet Websites, purportedly simplifies the online shopping process by allowing consumers to use a universal shopping cart to buy products from different Web sites. The woman has recently sued Yahoo! for patent infringement. B. On-line Auctions

3 The conventional scheme for conducting an auction has been automated, tweaked, and moved into the world of the Internet. One of the most widely advertised services, Priceline.com, owns several patents in this area. Its U.S. Patent number 5,794,207, entitled Method and Apparatus for... Buyer-Driven Conditional Purchase Offers, purportedly relates to the concept of allowing consumers to bid on airline tickets and other items. U.S. patent number 5,890,138, entitled Computer Auction System and owned by Bid.com, purportedly covers an Internet-based reverse auction system that decreases the price of merchandise over time and reduces the available quantity of the merchandise as consumers place orders. Yet another patent, number 6,021,398, entitled Computer Implemented Methods and Apparatus for Auctions, relates to an on-line auction system that determines whether an auction should be terminated. C. Financial Transactions Some patents relate to financial transactions such as banking and securities trading on the Internet. Patent number 5,870,721, entitled System and Method for Real Time Loan Approval, purportedly covers the concept of evaluating and approving a loan application electronically without any human intervention. Another patent (U.S. patent number 6,014,643, entitled Interactive Securities Trading System ) relates to a method for trading securities between individuals. Yet another patent, number 5,905,736, relates to a method of billing consumers for purchases made over the Internet. D. Consumer Reward Systems Some patents cover methods of rewarding consumers for participating in on-line activities such as advertising or game playing. One patent, owned by a company known as CyberGold, allegedly protects the concept of paying consumers to view advertisements on the Internet. (Patent number 5,794,210, entitled Attention Brokerage ). The more advertisements a consumer views, the more he or she is paid. Some consumers have earned thousands of dollars doing this; at least a few have been able to circumvent the requirement that they view the advertisements by employing computerized mouse-clickers that simulate browsing on the Internet. Another patent, owned by Netcentives, Inc., supposedly covers a technique for awarding frequent-flier miles in exchange for making on-line purchases. See U.S. patent number 5,774,870, entitled Fully Integrated, On-line Interactive Frequency and Award Redemption Program. E. Advertising Techniques

4 A company known as DoubleClick owns a patent entitled Method of Delivery, Targeting, and Measuring Advertising Over Networks. (Patent number 5,948,061). The company s targeted ad-delivery technology, which it refers to as DART, collects information on audience behavior and uses that information to target ads at particular consumers. DART also measures Web traffic and ad effectiveness and provides that data to Web publishers and advertisers. According to DoubleClick, the patent covers the dynamic delivery of Internet advertising by a third party ad server to network of Web sites or an individual site. Another patent, entitled System and Method for Assessing Effectiveness of Internet Marketing Campaign (patent number 6,006,197), describes a Web advertising system that measures the effectiveness of Internet advertisements by correlating transactions made after an advertisement to viewing of the advertisement. Some patents relate to providing electronic coupons over the Internet. One example is U.S. patent number 5,761,648, entitled Interactive Marketing Network and Process Using Electronic Certificates. The patent owner, referred to as CoolSavings, has sued several defendants for patent infringement. F. Infrastructure A number of patents are directed to basic Internet functions and structures. For example, U.S. Patent number 5,442,637, entitled Reducing the Complexities of the Transmission Control Protocol for High-Speed Networking, relates to a technique for decreasing the amount of processing required to process data packets in the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which is used to maintain connections between computers on the Internet. Patent number 5,675,741, entitled Method and Apparatus for Determining a Communications Path Between Two Nodes in an Internet Protocol network, relates to a method of tracing a communication path between computers on the Internet. G. Directories and Search Engines Various patents describe search engines and directory schemes on the Internet. For example, U.S. patent number 6,009,459, entitled Intelligent Automatic Searching for Resources in a Distributed Environment, relates to a Web browser that chooses a search engine based on information entered by the user. Patent number 6,009,422 ( System and Method for Query Translation/Semantic Translation Using Generalized Query Language ) relates to a method of searching using multiple search engines. U.S. patent number 5,682,525, entitled System and Methods for Remotely Accessing a Selected Group of Items of Interest From a Database, purportedly covers the concept of searching for a business based on its geographic location. The patent owner has sued Microsoft and other companies for patent infringement. See CIVIX-DDI

5 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1501 (D. Colo. 1999)(The court recently granted Microsoft s motion for summary judgment). PITFALLS OF INTERNET & E-COMMERCE PATENTS Internet and e-commerce patents can create special problems. Some of these problems are outlined below. 1. Inappropriate Claiming Strategies E-commerce and Internet inventions can present special problems in patent claiming strategies. Because a patent only covers what is recited in its claims, the wording of the claims becomes especially important in the Internet world, where it is sometimes difficult to target a single company or individual as an infringer. If a patent claims a method for transmitting information between two computers, a person who has a computer that performs only half of the invention could avoid infringement if the other half is performed by an Internet Service Provider such as America Online. Careful claiming strategies could avoid this problem by drafting claims that cover each half of the invention in such a way that it is patentable and yet covers each partial infringer. Claims can also be drafted to cover the interface or protocols used between systems, in order to catch infringers who provide partial systems that use the interface or protocol defined in the patent. For software inventions, claims can be crafted to cover unique application programming interfaces (APIs) that, if patented, could prevent a competitor from offering a compatible product. APIs usually define an interface between a high-level language and lower-level elements (e.g., operating system components) that implement a specific function. Other situations involving off-shore computer servers that transmit Web pages into the United States can present enforcement problems if patent claims are not drafted to carefully cover such possibilities. Claims focused on the reception and manipulation of data from an infringing off-shore computer could be used to ensnare Internet Service Providers and other intermediaries who contribute to infringement of the patent. Software patents generally require careful forethought regarding the targets of likely infringement. Claims that cover computer-readable media (so-called Beauregard claims) can be used to go after mass producers of disks or CD-ROMs who sell infringing software to consumers. Method claims that cover user interface steps can be used to cover Web site operators (including Internet Service Providers) that provide services to consumers. The use of means plus function claim formats should, in the author s opinion, be avoided.

6 2. Written Description Issues In 1985 Charles Freeny received a patent for a method of reproducing information in material objects at a point of sale location. (U.S. patent number 4,528,643). The basic idea was that a customer could visit a music store and purchase a custom-made music disk. The store would transmit a catalog code to a distant computer, which would authorize the transaction, and an information manufacturing machine in the store would then copy the selected information (e.g., music) onto the material object (a disk or tape) for the customer. Freeny s company sued CompuServe and a number of other defendants, alleging that the transmission of computer software and documents in digital form over the Internet to home computers infringed the patent. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1797 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Even though the patent made no mention of the Internet, Freeny s position was that the patent was broad enough to cover the sale of information over the Internet, and that the home computers were information manufacturing machines under the patent. The district court held a so-called Markman hearing to interpret the claims of the patent. As part of this interpretation, the court concluded that the patent could not be stretched to cover the sale of information over the Internet. First, the court concluded that while the claims did not specifically require that the information be pre-stored in the information manufacturing machines, the written description portion of the patent made it clear that the information was pre-stored rather than downloaded in real time. Although the patent mentioned the possibility of transmitting the information while the customer waited (instead of pre-storing it), the patent criticized such a scheme as economically unsound. Consequently, the court ruled that the patent would not apply to systems in which the information was transmitted to home computers while the customer waited. Second, Freeny alleged that the claimed authorization code provided to the information manufacturing machine was broad enough to cover an Internet Protocol address assigned to a home computer. The court rejected that contention, finding that the patent described the authorization code as a code that enabled the information manufacturing machine to decode or decipher the information stored in the machine. Finally, the court rejected Freeny s contention that the claimed point of sale location could be a customer s home. Because the patent repeatedly referred to a retail outlet as a point of sale location, and because the patent stated that the point of sale location is a location where a consumer goes to purchase material objects, the court ruled that the patent was limited to locations in which a customer travels to purchase the material objects, and that it must be a location that offers for sale blank material objects.

7 The court also concluded that the claimed material object could not be a hard disk inside a customer s computer, and that the claimed information manufacturing machine was limited to a machine including four specific components that were described in the patent. Based on these interpretations, the patent could not be used to cover information transmitted over the Internet to home computers. The CompuServe case illustrates an important point: the written description of patents that were filed before the advent of the Internet will be carefully scrutinized to determine whether they can fairly cover later-developed Internet technologies. Broadly written but vague patents that are later urged to cover Internet technologies will likely be interpreted narrowly in order to give effect to the inventor s original intent. Another case illustrating this problem was recently decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 1988 Wang Laboratories received a patent entitled Videotex Frame Processing (U.S. patent number 4,751,669). In a typical videotex system, text and graphics information is transmitted to subscribers over a telephone or TV system. The Wang invention entailed storage of pages or frames of data from different information suppliers. According to Wang, the patent was broad enough to cover AOL s favorite places and Netscape s bookmark features, well-known conveniences on the modern day Web. Wang sued AOL, Netscape and others for patent infringement. The district court concluded on summary judgment that Wang s patent was limited to character-based frames, and could not be used to cover bit-mapped protocols that are used on the World Wide Web (including those used by AOL and Netscape). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed, concluding that the word frame as used in the Wang patent was specifically limited to character-based systems. The appeals court pointed to the figures and description in the patent, which repeatedly referred to character-based systems in explaining the invention. Although a bit-mapped protocol was mentioned in the background of the invention portion of the patent, that single reference was insufficient to provide support for bit-mapped systems. The court also found it significant that the Wang inventors had been unable to implement a bit-mapped graphics protocol, further supporting the view that only a character-based system had been intended. In view of the huge differences between character-based and bit-mapped systems, the court also found that no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was possible. A plaintiff tried to shoehorn vague terminology to cover Internet software in CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation et al., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 717 (Jan. 24, 2000). One of the patents concerned electronic directories that allowed persons to locate businesses based on a geographic location. The patent disclosed and claimed user stations from which the directories could be operated. The plaintiffs argued that the claimed user stations could cover any computer device (including personal computers). The defendants argued that user stations were limited to public fixtures such as kiosks. The court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment of non-

8 infringement, on the basis that at the time the patent application was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret user station to be a fixed public structure. In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1274 (N.D. Cal. 1998), a patent owner who claimed to have invented multi-threading for computer programs sued Microsoft over two patents relating to that technology. The district court ruled that the patent was invalid because the claims failed to include certain necessary elements that were described in the patent (an editor, a compiler, an interrupt means, and a return means). According to the district court, the plaintiff s original patent application strongly suggested that four elements were critical to operation of the invention, yet the claims in the patent as issued made no reference to any of these elements. Finding that the case was similar to the Federal Circuit s decision in Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the court invalidated the patents on the ground that the claims improperly omitted these essential elements of the original patent application (an appeal is pending). The above cases illustrate problems with fast-moving technologies like those involving the Internet. If patents are written using vague terminology, courts may reign in the scope of the patent by assigning more specific definitions to the terminology based on technology in existence at the time the patent application was filed, or by invalidating the patents. New devices, protocols, and techniques that have no counterpart in older technologies may escape the patent altogether. On the other hand, writing patent claims using terminology that is too specific may limit the patent to a narrow field of protection. 3. Personal Jurisdiction Problems When an allegedly infringing product is advertised for sale on the Internet on a Web page that can be readily viewed from any state, one might assume that it would be a straightforward matter to sue the company that is advertising the product. Similarly, when a Web site operator uses an allegedly infringing method to display information on a Web site, one would assume that it would be a clear-cut matter to establish that the party can be sued in a given forum. After all, the patent statute was amended a few years ago to make offering for sale an infringing product or service an act of infringement. These assumptions, however, would be incorrect. A recurring problem that arises in cases involving the Internet is: where, if anywhere, does the infringement occur? Defendants frequently allege that they have been sued in the wrong forum, or that they cannot be sued at all. A federal judge recently issued a preliminary injunction against a Canadian-based web site, icravetv, that was rebroadcasting copyrighted TV programs over the Internet. Because of the Internet s global reach, anyone in the world (including viewers in the United States) could view the programs. The Canadian company took the position that the rebroadcasts did not violate Canadian law. While this case arose in the copyright context, it is easy to see how the same issue can arise in the context of patent infringement over the Internet.

9 In Agar Corporation Inc. v. Multi-Fluid Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1444 (S.D. Tex. 1997), a Norwegian company advertised allegedly infringing products on its Web site. The Web site suggested that persons interested in the products should place a call to the Norway company or to its Colorado affiliate. The plaintiff sued the Norwegian company and the Colorado affiliate in Texas, asserting patent infringement based on the offer to sell provisions of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). Consistent with other court decisions, the Agar court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the Web site was mostly passive, providing information only and not allowing a customer to consummate a purchase. Finding that the Web site was akin to an advertisement in a national publication that was not specifically directed at Texas residents, the court concluded that there were insufficient contacts with Texas to assert jurisdiction over the companies. See also, ESAB Group Inc. v. Centricut LLC, 49 USPQ2d 1822 (D.S.C. 1999)(Web site that offered products but that was not actually used to consummate a sale from South Carolina did not constitute purposeful availment of South Carolina for personal jurisdiction purposes). Compare CoolSavings.Com Inc. v. IQ.Commerce Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1136 (N.D. Ill. 1999)(interactive Web site directed at entire country established minimum contacts with Illinois for patent infringement purposes; court noted that the use of the Web site itself allegedly constituted patent infringement). In CIVIX-DDI LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1501 (D. Colo. 1999), the court concluded that a Bellsouth Yellow Pages Web site providing search capabilities was not directed at Colorado residents, and dismissed Bellsouth from the lawsuit. The court found it significant that the defendant derived no advertising revenues from the Web site, and did not specifically solicit Internet users in Colorado. The issue is even more acute with respect to companies that transmit information (including offers for sale) into the United States from an off-shore computer. This issue is presently pending in a case in the Eastern District of Virginia styled Addiction Research Institute, Inc. v. Healing Visions Institute for Addiction Recovery, Ltd., No. 2:99-CV The defendant, Healing Visions, transmitted offers to treat patients at an off-shore facility using a U.S.-patented method. In its motion to dismiss, Healing Visions contends that it cannot be held liable for infringement in the United States, even though its offer was transmitted into and directed at U.S. residents in Virginia. The case law so far has generally drawn a distinction between Web sites that are active (i.e., those through which an order can be placed) and those that are passive (i.e., those that merely provide general information but do not constitute an offer to sell allegedly infringing material). 4. Prior Art Searching Problems When evaluating the patentability of an Internet or E-commerce invention, searching for prior art can present a tricky problem. Searches through U.S. patents and issued publications frequently fail to turn up related inventions that might be similar to the subject invention. Inventors usually have access to the latest technology, and conventional prior art searches can be shunned in favor of the inventor s analysis of the

10 closest prior art. Consequently, it may be advisable to search the Web for related Web sites and methods, and to ask the inventors to help identify the closest prior art. WHERE THERE ARE PATENTS, THERE ARE LAWSUITS The recent injunction granted to Amazon.com against Barnesandnoble.com illustrates the power of a single patent. In October 1999, Amazon.com sued Barnesandnoble.com for patent infringement, alleging that Barnesandnoble.com s Web site infringed Amazon s one-click patented technology (U.S. patent number 5,960,411). Amazon s patented system allows online shoppers to purchase items without filling out registration and shipping information forms each time they make a purchase. Instead, repeat shoppers can merely click an item that they wish to purchase, and the sale is instantly consummated. Amazon.com obtained its one-click patent in September 1999, and sued Barnesandnoble.com barely one month later, alleging that Barnesandnoble.com s Express Lane ordering system copied the patented method. In response to Amazon.com s motion for a preliminary injunction, Barnesandnoble.com argued that the patented method was obvious, and that the patent was invalid. The district court rejected these arguments, finding that it would not have been obvious to implement a one-click ordering method. Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1115, 1125 (W.D. Wash. 1999). The district court concluded that Barnesandnoble.com s copying of the patented feature provided additional evidence of its nonobviousness, and enjoined Barnesandnoble.com from infringing the patent. Barnesandnoble.com quickly modified its allegedly infringing design to require additional clicks before a consumer could consummate a purchase. In the world of the Internet, its site became slightly less convenient and slower than that of its competitor. Yahoo! is the latest dot-com company to be sued by a patent infringement plaintiff. The lawsuit, filed in Missouri in November 1999, alleges that Yahoo s Yahoo! Shopping feature infringes a patent owned by Juliette Harrington, a New Zealand woman. The patent, U.S. patent number 5,895,454, entitled Integrated Interface for Vendor/Product Oriented Internet Websites, allegedly covers a universal shopping cart that permits consumers to purchase items from different Web sites in a single transaction. Harrington v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 4:99 CV-1751 (E.D. Mo.). In another recently-filed lawsuit, Trilogy Software Inc. sued CarsDirect.com, claiming that CarsDirect infringes its patented method for permitting customers to choose options for a car ordered over the Internet. The patented technique (U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651) purportedly guides customers through the selection process by automatically including certain options and permitting the customer to choose other options, based on compatibility among options. At first glance, the patent appears to cover the mere automation of a car salesman s ordinary business practices. Triology Software, Inc. v. CarsDirect.com Inc., No. A 99CA-69 (W.D. Tex).

11 Another company claims to have a patent covering the sale of music in electronic form over the Internet. The company, Parsec Sight/Sound Inc., filed a lawsuit against a company for infringing its patented method (Patent No. 5,191,573, entitled Method for Transmitting a Desired Digital Video or Audio Signal ). Parsec Sight/Sound Inc. v. N2K Inc., No. 98-CV-118 (W.D. Pa.). Doubleclick recently sued L90 in the Eastern District of Virginia for patent infringement, claiming that L90 s advertising serving and tracking software infringes the patent. (Patent number 5,948,061). The patent allegedly covers the concept of targeted advertising on the Internet based on user profiles. Not even ebay, the pioneering auction Web site, has been immune from lawsuits. Network Engineering Software Inc. of San Jose, California, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ebay over database technology that allows users to publish information on the Web. (U.S. Patent No. 5,778,367). The patent is entited Automated On-Line Information Service and Directory, Particularly for the World Wide Web. If there is one lesson from the spate of recent lawsuits, it is that patent owners are setting their sights on big target defendants. Large corporations with an Internet presence are more likely to be sued for patent infringement than smaller, lesser-known companies. The very nature of the Internet makes it much easier to discover infringement than was previously possible. For example, a Web site that is launched by a small jazz club can be instantly located and viewed from anywhere in the world. Automated Web robots can be used to search the Web for various key words or pictures that might suggest infringing conduct. As the number of Internet and E- commerce patents continues to grow, infringement lawsuits are likely to increase proportionately. CONCLUSION In the Internet world, where a successful business model can make the difference between a good idea and a money-making idea that draws investors from every nook and cranny, companies are in a feeding frenzy to patent their business models and methods. Wireless Web devices that combine the technologies of cellular telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and Internet technologies will be subject to patents in many different technical areas. Palm Computing s Palm VII comes with an integrated antenna that connects the device to the Internet for a nominal monthly fee. Cellular phones can now be purchased with Palm s operating systems. AT&T Wireless also offers mobile wireless services. As protocols such as the Wireless Access Protocol (WAP) become more prevalent, wireless Internet devices are likely to be the next wave of targets subjected to a broad array of patent lawsuits. One patent that has recently come to the attention of many companies is owned by Geoworks (U.S. patent number 5,327,529). It purportedly covers the concept of rearranging pages of information to fit on the screens of phones and

12 mobile devices. In a press release issued on January 19, 2000, Geoworks announced that it holds essential Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), and the Wireless Markup Language (WML) specification. Such statements sent its stock price soaring; it remains to be seen whether a court will agree that the scope of its patent is as broad as its press release makes it appear. Originally presented by Mr. Wright at the ABA, Intellectual Property Law Section s Spring CLE Program on E-commerce and Internet Patents on April 4, 2000.

Patenting of Internet and e-commerce: An International View

Patenting of Internet and e-commerce: An International View Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 14, March 2009, pp. 131-141 Patenting of Internet and e-commerce: An International View Subhasis Saha Hidayatullah National Law University, Civil Lines, Near

More information

LEGAL UPDATE THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS: U-HAUL INT L, INC. V. WHENU.COM. Andrew J. Sinclair

LEGAL UPDATE THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS: U-HAUL INT L, INC. V. WHENU.COM. Andrew J. Sinclair LEGAL UPDATE THIRD PARTY POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS: U-HAUL INT L, INC. V. WHENU.COM Andrew J. Sinclair I. INTRODUCTION Pop-up advertising has been an enormous success for internet advertisers 1 and a huge

More information

Use of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not?

Use of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not? Use of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not? Grady M. Garrison and Laura P. Merritt Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz P.C. Michael M. Lafeber Briggs and Morgan,

More information

'Safe Harbor' For Online Service Providers

'Safe Harbor' For Online Service Providers Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com 'Safe Harbor' For Online Service Providers

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May 2007 1 Hogan & Hartson LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE Supreme Court Holds That 35 U.S.C. 271(f) Does Not Apply To Golden Master Disks In a decision handed down April

More information

Case: 1:13-cv-00260 Document #: 55 Filed: 08/16/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:

Case: 1:13-cv-00260 Document #: 55 Filed: 08/16/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:<pageid> Case: 1:13-cv-00260 Document #: 55 Filed: 08/16/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DENTAL USA, INC. Plaintiff, v. No. 13 CV 260

More information

BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS: PROTECTING INVENTIONS OF SERVICE BUSINESS CLIENTS

BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS: PROTECTING INVENTIONS OF SERVICE BUSINESS CLIENTS Official Publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association Vol. 62, No. 8 September 2005 Classifieds Display Ads Back to Contents BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS: PROTECTING INVENTIONS OF SERVICE BUSINESS CLIENTS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:08-cv-02601-MLB-KMH Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HIMOINSA POWER SYSTEMS, INC. ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No.

More information

Case 2:14-cv-00421-MJP Document 40 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:14-cv-00421-MJP Document 40 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 6 Case :-cv-00-mjp Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 KENNETH WRIGHT, CASE NO. C- MJP v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO

More information

Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DR. MARC L. KOZAM * d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE, et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. CIVIL

More information

INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member)

INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member) Christopher J. Palermo Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP 2055 Gateway Place Suite 550 San Jose, California 95110 USA Tel. +1-408-414-1202 - cpalermo@hptb-law.com 1,800 words INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER:

More information

PATENTS AND THE INTERNET

PATENTS AND THE INTERNET PATENTS AND THE INTERNET INTRODUCTION The global proliferation of networked computers on the Internet has spawned explosive growth in patents in the United States and worldwide. The advent of the World

More information

The Verizon - Vonage Decision

The Verizon - Vonage Decision Implications of the Verizon - Vonage Patent Infringement Judgment Overview The Complaint, Result and Next Steps in the litigation Scope of the Patents Implications of the decision and of various patents

More information

TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET

TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET TRADEMARK LAW A trademark or service mark is a word, name, symbol or device used to identify goods or services and distinguish them from others. Trademarks and service marks

More information

INTERNET USAGE AND THE POTENTIAL EFFECT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PATENT PROGRAM. Steven D. Hemminger. Lyon & Lyon, LLP

INTERNET USAGE AND THE POTENTIAL EFFECT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PATENT PROGRAM. Steven D. Hemminger. Lyon & Lyon, LLP INTERNET USAGE AND THE POTENTIAL EFFECT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PATENT PROGRAM Steven D. Hemminger Lyon & Lyon, LLP {1} Much has been written and said about the Internet and the benefits for a company

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00116-LY Document 1 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 1:13-cv-00116-LY Document 1 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Case 1:13-cv-00116-LY Document 1 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:13cv116 v.

More information

Case 2:15-cv-01266-RWS Document 1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

Case 2:15-cv-01266-RWS Document 1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 Case 2:15-cv-01266-RWS Document 1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

More information

2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ADDICTION & DETOXIFICATION ) INSTITUTE, LLC, ) Plaintiff,

More information

CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA QUALITY BICYCLE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Plaintiff, BIKEBARON, LLC SINCLAIR IMPORTS, LLC and

More information

Internet Grocery Stores What does the future look like? By: Matthew Rousu

Internet Grocery Stores What does the future look like? By: Matthew Rousu Internet Grocery Stores What does the future look like? By: Matthew Rousu In the past several years, there has been an explosion of Internet companies on the retail market. Internet grocery stores exist,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STANDARD PROCESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-C-843 DR. SCOTT J. BANKS, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER Standard Process, Inc. ( Standard Process

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LANDS END, INC., OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC,

More information

Patent Basics for Non-Patent Attorneys October 11, 2005

Patent Basics for Non-Patent Attorneys October 11, 2005 The Marin County Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Presents: Patent Basics for Non-Patent Attorneys October 11, 2005 Steven A. Nielsen Registered Patent Attorney USPTO # 54699 Allman & Nielsen,

More information

Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, D. Maryland. Dr. Marc L. KOZAM d/b/a MLK Software, et al, Plaintiffs. v. PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, et al, Defendants. Aug. 29, 2005. Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PLANET BINGO, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King), Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS

Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EXPRESS LIEN INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-3323 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT

More information

GOOGLE's ADWORDS PROGRAM

GOOGLE's ADWORDS PROGRAM Page 1 of 6 LANHAM ACT CASE INVOLVED GOOGLE's ADWORDS PROGRAM AND KEYWORD META TAGS COURT GRANTED DEFENDANT's MOTION TO DISMISS A federal district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's

More information

Trademark Infringement Complaint. No. Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,, I. PARTIES

Trademark Infringement Complaint. No. Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,, I. PARTIES Trademark Infringement Complaint [Name/Address] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALPHA, INC., a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, MR, DELTA

More information

The Rise in Qui Tam False Patent Marking Litigation

The Rise in Qui Tam False Patent Marking Litigation The Rise in Qui Tam False Patent Marking Litigation September 13, 2010 Jason C. White 1 Issues Addressed False Patent Marking Background Forest Group v. Bon Tool Decision Increase in False Marking Lawsuits

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action No: v. VICTORIA S SECRET DIRECT BRAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, JURY TRIAL

More information

BUS 478: Seminar on Business Strategy SYNOPSIS PROJECT: AMAZON.COM. Group G. Group Members: Tristan Landrecht. Jessica Zhang. John Chen.

BUS 478: Seminar on Business Strategy SYNOPSIS PROJECT: AMAZON.COM. Group G. Group Members: Tristan Landrecht. Jessica Zhang. John Chen. BUS 478: Seminar on Business Strategy SYNOPSIS PROJECT: AMAZON.COM Group G Group Members: Tristan Landrecht Jessica Zhang John Chen Jin Can Chen Jae Kim 0 Company Background When Amazon was founded in

More information

To get a Rewards link for your Team or Organzation

To get a Rewards link for your Team or Organzation Contents Introduction... 2 To get a Rewards link for your Team or Organzation... 3 To get your Rewards links if you already have a player account... 6 To get your Rewards links if you do not have a Player

More information

United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope

United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope Today in United Video Properties, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Fed. App x (Fed. Cir. 2014)(Lourie, J.), the Court affirmed a noninfringement ruling where

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )

More information

Case 6:15-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

Case 6:15-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 Case 6:15-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and INTELLECTUAL VENTURES

More information

Online Appointment Manager [ online appointment scheduling made easy and affordable ]

Online Appointment Manager [ online appointment scheduling made easy and affordable ] 1 [ online appointment scheduling made easy and affordable ] Have you ever thought of accepting appointments right from your web site? Did it seem to you too complicated or expensive?...or even impossible?

More information

PATENTS ACT 1977. Whether patent application GB0323776.5 complies with section 1(1) and 1(2) DECISION

PATENTS ACT 1977. Whether patent application GB0323776.5 complies with section 1(1) and 1(2) DECISION BL O/075/06 PATENTS ACT 1977 23 rd March 2006 APPLICANT ISSUE Elliot Klein Whether patent application GB0323776.5 complies with section 1(1) and 1(2) HEARING OFFICER H Jones DECISION Introduction 1 International

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS J. KLUTHO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:06CV1212 CDP ) HOME LOAN CENTER, INC, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

More information

TaxSaverNetwork. Terms of Service

TaxSaverNetwork. Terms of Service TaxSaverNetwork Terms of Service 1031 Exchange Advantage (1031 EA, LLC) provides 1031 accommodation services for investors to conclude a 1031 exchange under IRC code regulations. 1031 EA, LLC structures,

More information

Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot

Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.

More information

SAMPLE EXAMINATION PAPER SAMPLE ANSWERS

SAMPLE EXAMINATION PAPER SAMPLE ANSWERS EXAMINATION PAPER: ACADEMIC SESSION 2003/2004 Campus School Department Level TITLE OF PAPER COURSE CODE Maritime Computing and Mathematical Sciences Information Systems and Multimedia Three ecommerce COMP1308

More information

Selling Digital Goods Online

Selling Digital Goods Online PayLoadz.com Selling Digital Goods Online How to use the PayLoadz and PayPal services to sell digital goods on your web site Updated: 02/12/2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...3 HOW IT WORKS...3 GETTING

More information

Verizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry

Verizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry Verizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry By Kristie D. Prinz, Founder The Prinz Law Office State Bar of California Annual Meeting

More information

Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights Last Updated: May 28, 2015 Introduction

Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights Last Updated: May 28, 2015 Introduction Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights Last Updated: May 28, 2015 Introduction Welcome! TripleFirrre, LLC, dba Just Seconds Apart knows that safeguarding your privacy is serious business. Your privacy

More information

In the Technology-Driven, File Sharing Era, Copyright Protection Remains Alive and Well As a Tool to Combat Active Inducements to Infringe

In the Technology-Driven, File Sharing Era, Copyright Protection Remains Alive and Well As a Tool to Combat Active Inducements to Infringe In the Technology-Driven, File Sharing Era, Copyright Protection Remains Alive and Well As a Tool to Combat Active Inducements to Infringe On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:10-cv-00117 Document #: 114 Filed: 11/08/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1538 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIANNA GREENE, on behalf of ) herself and others

More information

Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNIQUE PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, LTD., ) Case No. 5:10-CV-1912 )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION KIMBERLY D. BOVA, WILLIAM L. BOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civil

More information

University of Houston Law Center

University of Houston Law Center University of Houston Law Center Digital Transactions Week 1 Internet Jurisdiction Copyright, 2006, Ronald L. Chichester, All Rights Reserved Internet Jurisdiction In General Old Cases Still Apply Due

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 14-3671 & 15-1153 RTP LLC and RSCD OPPORTUNITY FUND I, LLC (formerly known as Inheritance Capital Group, LLC), Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE REMY INC., UNIT PARTS COMPANY, and WORLDWIDE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Plaintiffs, v. C. A. No. 06-785-GMS/MPT CIF LICENSING, LLC D/B/A GE LICENSING,

More information

Entrepreneurship and the Internet

Entrepreneurship and the Internet Entrepreneurship and the Internet Thomas Poulios Technological Education Institute of Larissa Larissa, Greece poulios@teilar.gr 1 E-Commerce Revenue as % of Total Revenue 0,4 in the USA 0,1 in the Western

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1022-Orl-22KRS SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendants.

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00034-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:13-cv-00034-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:13-cv-00034-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 STEELHEAD LICENSING LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE v. Plaintiff, AT&T, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY

More information

v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS

v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRITE SMART CORP. Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. Civ. Action No. 2:14-cv-760 JURY DEMANDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

More information

Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:

Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageid> Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DARYL HILL, vs. Plaintiff, WHITE JACOBS

More information

Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury

Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Summary of Cases Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Brotech Corp., 857 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15297 (3d Cir. May 12, 1995)

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND NICOLE MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 05-38S HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United

More information

jurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND

jurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 TRICIA LECKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. /

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13210. D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13210. D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL. versus Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 LAKESHORE LAW CENTER Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 0 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 0-0 Yorba Linda, CA --0 --0 (fax jeff@lakeshorelaw.org Attorney and Plaintiff

More information

Case 6:15-cv-00059 Document 1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

Case 6:15-cv-00059 Document 1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 Case 6:15-cv-00059 Document 1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case

More information

Authenticated Caller ID Plus Regulatory Changes

Authenticated Caller ID Plus Regulatory Changes Authenticated Caller ID Plus Regulatory Changes By Vincent A. Lucas, Ph.D. Presented to the FTC Robocall Challenge This paper provides solutions to two problems faced in the enforcement of the Telephone

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2827 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2827 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRUCE RASSOLI, et al., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2827 INTUIT INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Bruce

More information

Case 1:12-cv-00939-RPM Document 1 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:12-cv-00939-RPM Document 1 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:12-cv-00939-RPM Document 1 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. SPYDERLYNK, LLC.

More information

Liability of Internet Service Providers

Liability of Internet Service Providers Liability of Internet Service Providers Tsuneaki Hagiwara Manager of the Legal Department, Toppan Printing Co., Ltd. 1. U.S. Rules Limiting Liability of Internet Service Providers (1) Copyright Infringement

More information

Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353

Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353 Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff,

More information

U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics)

U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics) U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics) Thomas K. Scherer Federal and State Court, ITC actions Considerations of speed and remedies involved Eastern District of Texas Considerations of

More information

Introduction to E-Commerce. Revenue Models. Objectives. In this chapter, you will learn about:

Introduction to E-Commerce. Revenue Models. Objectives. In this chapter, you will learn about: Introduction to E-Commerce Revenue Models Objectives In this chapter, you will learn about: Revenue models How some companies move from one revenue model to another to achieve success Revenue strategy

More information

Merchant Service and Licensing Agreement

Merchant Service and Licensing Agreement 5204 S. Sand Cherry Circle, Sioux Falls SD 57108 www.etechglobal.com Phone: (605) 339-4529 Merchant Service and Licensing Agreement AGREEMENT The EtechGlobal Online Store service ("EtechGlobal Online Store"

More information

F I L E D July 17, 2013

F I L E D July 17, 2013 Case: 12-11255 Document: 00512311028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-11255 Summary Calendar COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

More information

CLASS ACTION. Westlaw Journal. Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising And Privacy Claims

CLASS ACTION. Westlaw Journal. Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising And Privacy Claims Westlaw Journal CLASS ACTION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 19, ISSUE 8 / SEPTEMBER 2012 Expert Analysis The State of Coverage Disputes Concerning Advertising

More information

Case 2:14-cv-01214-DGC Document 38 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:14-cv-01214-DGC Document 38 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO Wintrode Enterprises Incorporated, v. PSTL LLC, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Defendants. No. CV--0-PHX-DGC

More information

Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software in the United States

Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software in the United States Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software in the United States How can you protect what you or your client considers novel aspects of your computer software in the United States? What options

More information

Web development, intellectual property, e-commerce & legal issues. Presented By: Lisa Abe

Web development, intellectual property, e-commerce & legal issues. Presented By: Lisa Abe Web development, intellectual property, e-commerce & legal issues Presented By: Lisa Abe October 8, 2005 Web development, intellectual property, e-commerce & legal issues 1. what intellectual property

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ACQIS LLC, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 6:11-CV-546 Jury Trial Demanded

More information

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE CAREFULLY. THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE USER S LAST VISIT TO THIS SITE.

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE CAREFULLY. THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE USER S LAST VISIT TO THIS SITE. Visit Lake Norman Lake Norman Convention & Visitors Bureau 19900 West Catawba Avenue, Suite 102 Cornelius, North Carolina 28031 704-987-3300 visitlakenorman.org TERMS AND CONDITIONS Visit Lake Norman (Lake

More information

News and Information. Advertising and Marketing. Web. Design, Hosting, Promotion, Advertising, SEO

News and Information. Advertising and Marketing. Web. Design, Hosting, Promotion, Advertising, SEO SEARCH ENGINE ADVERTISING PROMOTION News and Information. Advertising and Marketing. WEB HOSTING Web WEB DESIGN REVISED: MAY, 2008 Design, Hosting, Promotion, Advertising, SEO McLeod County Road 1 and

More information

System Center Configuration Manager 2007

System Center Configuration Manager 2007 System Center Configuration Manager 2007 Software Distribution Guide Friday, 26 February 2010 Version 1.0.0.0 Baseline Prepared by Microsoft Copyright This document and/or software ( this Content ) has

More information

Patent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions

Patent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions 1 Table of Contents 1. WHAT IS A REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION?...2 2. WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS CALL FOR A REISSUED PATENT?...2

More information

Commentary. By Gregory Nylen

Commentary. By Gregory Nylen Commentary Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service, Association, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007): A Free Pass For Merchant Account Providers For Secondary Liability In Trademark Counterfeiting Cases?

More information

Mind Your Own Business Innovators Must Help Themselves as PTO Dishes Out Dot-Com Patents

Mind Your Own Business Innovators Must Help Themselves as PTO Dishes Out Dot-Com Patents Reprinted with permission from Legal Times (p.31, February 14, 2000) Mind Your Own Business Innovators Must Help Themselves as PTO Dishes Out Dot-Com Patents by Mark E. Plotkin (Mark E. Plotkin, a partner

More information

Adobe Reader 7.0 Frequently Asked Questions for Digital Edition Users

Adobe Reader 7.0 Frequently Asked Questions for Digital Edition Users FAQ Adobe Reader 7.0 TOPICS 1 General 4 Adobe DRM 4 digital edition support 4 Activation 5 Mac OS support 6 PDA support General Q: What is a digital edition (formerly known as an ebook)? A: A digital edition

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. MEMORANDUM and ORDER. CPC Associates ( CPCIf) and Acxiom Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. MEMORANDUM and ORDER. CPC Associates ( CPCIf) and Acxiom Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GNAMES ADVANTAGE, L.P. V. CPC ASSOCIATES, INC ACXIOM CORP. McLaughl in, J. and MEMORANDUM and ORDER NO. 00-CV-4032 September

More information

Well, it isn t if you have the right pre-built, totally unique website, which has all the income resources already built in.

Well, it isn t if you have the right pre-built, totally unique website, which has all the income resources already built in. Here s How You Can Quickly An Easily Own A Professionally Designed ecommerce Website Guaranteed To Rank High In The SERP s & Earn YOU Recurring Income each month without Having To Design, Implement or

More information

DIGITAL MARKETING. be seen. CHANNELADVISOR DIGITAL MARKETING ENABLES RETAILERS TO: And many more

DIGITAL MARKETING. be seen. CHANNELADVISOR DIGITAL MARKETING ENABLES RETAILERS TO: And many more DATA SHEET be seen. DIGITAL MARKETING With more and more digital marketing channels introduced each year, it can be hard to keep track of every place you re advertising let alone how each of your products

More information

Case: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., ) CASE NO. 1:10

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte B. REILLY BARRY, MARK A. CHODORONEK, ERIC DEROSE, CAROL Y. DEVINE, MARK N. STUDNESS, ANGELA R. JAMES,

More information

What every product manager should know about Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks. Varun A. Shah Patent Attorney

What every product manager should know about Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks. Varun A. Shah Patent Attorney What every product manager should know about Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks Silicon Valley Product Management Association February 3, 2010 Varun A. Shah Patent Attorney Hickman

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION YANGAROO INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 09-C-0462 -v- DESTINY MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES INC., DESTINY SOFTWARE PRODUCTIONS

More information

THE FCC S RESPONSE TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. V. AEREO, INC.

THE FCC S RESPONSE TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. V. AEREO, INC. THE FCC S RESPONSE TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. V. AEREO, INC. February 20, 2015 Intellectual Property Litigation in Texas: Video Games, Damages, Patents and the Supreme Court Presented by

More information

Case 2:13-cv-00993 Document 1 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:13-cv-00993 Document 1 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 10 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of JOHN W. BERRY (N.Y. Bar No. ) Email: berryj@sec.gov LESLIE A. HAKALA (Cal. Bar. No. ) Email: hakalal@sec.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission

More information

EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213. Section 13 -- Siegel. Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS

EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213. Section 13 -- Siegel. Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS GWid: EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213 Section 13 -- Siegel Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS 1. This is an open book examination. You may use any written materials that you have brought with you (including

More information

Case 1:11-cv-00911-RHB Doc #48 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#1233

Case 1:11-cv-00911-RHB Doc #48 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#1233 Case 1:11-cv-00911-RHB Doc #48 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#1233 LOWN COMPANIES, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, PIGGY PAINT,

More information

Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 Case: 1:13-cv-08310 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GRANT, individually and on

More information

ADOBE ACROBAT CONNECT ADD-IN FOR MICROSOFT OUTLOOK USER GUIDE

ADOBE ACROBAT CONNECT ADD-IN FOR MICROSOFT OUTLOOK USER GUIDE ADOBE ACROBAT CONNECT ADD-IN FOR MICROSOFT OUTLOOK USER GUIDE 2007 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved. Adobe Acrobat Connect Add-in for Microsoft Outlook User Guide If this guide is distributed

More information

Web Ecommerce Eshopping Software Development

Web Ecommerce Eshopping Software Development Web Ecommerce Eshopping Software Development Rapidsoft engineers have been working on developing ecommerce and e-shopping software for over a decade now. Having developed numerous ecommerce software applications,

More information